Non-religous arguments against gay marriage

[KarenNC]

Most ‘married’ couples talk about having children. In the case of two people who are not of opposite gender, the natural process of that, will be impossible, and thus adoption or artifical insemination will be the only alternative. (adoption is an awesome thing, but because conception is impossible between a same sex couple, it begs the question…is that natural?) If we were all same sex couples…multiplying the species would die off, to be silly about it. But, that’s still an argument.

But not a very good one, in my opinion. A lesbian is certainly capable of having her own biological child.There is no distinction in the law about children born to heterosexual parents through artificial insemination, conceived from an affair or who become members of the family through adoption vs. biological children. The stepparent who adopts the partner’s child from a previous marriage is fully and legally that child’s parent.

And if we all took Catholic orders and were celibate the species would die off as well, but I don’t see that as a reasonable argument either against the existence of Catholic clergy, nuns, monks, etc or necessarily a valid argument against expecting celibacy for those orders.

So, I would say that a ‘non religious’ argument would be that for the sake of children, being in a home where there are two people of the same sex…I think it will cause confusion for a child. I have seen documentaries on the topic, where children seem to be ok growing up like that, especially if they grew up from infant stage in that setting. But, is that healthy?

Healthy compared to what? In order to be really valid, you would need to show that growing up with two married same sex parents in a loving stable home was less healthy than growing up in any home with two married different sex parents. I don’t think that will happen, as there are unfortunately plenty of heterosexual marriages out there that are perfectly legal but provide much less than optimum environments for their children.

I wish there were some stats on such a topic. That would be a non religious argument though–but, same sex couples are adopting every day…regardless of their legal marital status. So…will not allowing legal marriages make a difference in this case, any way? Maybe for tax purposes, or something sterile like that, it might.

Could you clarify what you mean by “sterile”?

The reason why we go in circles with these topics, is that there are so many underlying morality issues when it comes to this…there are other issues that get tied in, so it’s hard to focus on just the one issue. Example being, if someone doesn’t see the gay lifestyle as immoral, let’s say…then it’s natural that he/she wouldn’t see artificial insemination as immoral…or teaching kids about such a lifestyle. So…again, we as Catholics have a hard time with these issues, and coming up with good arguments, because we look to God for our moral law…where moral relativism plays a huge part in same sex marriages. (live and let live kind of thing)

And that’s the reason that there is a difference between sacramental marriage and civil marriage. No church is required to either acknowledge a civil marriage as sacramentally binding or to perform a sacramental marriage for anyone who does not meet their requirements. This is seen every day.

 

[ljprevo]

Lemme see, leave religion out of the debate.

First it is wrong biblically

Then

Socially (A vast majority does not accept this behavior)
**Biologically ** (Males were clearly designed to mate with a female)
**Morally **(Not just Christian religions be it is known to be just plan wrong)
Scientifically (can’t create something from the same sex)
Historically (See many presidents with “First Men”, a head of state usually has a spouse of the opposite sex)
Politically (Some political party’s are against it, laws ban gay marriage)
Mentally (Oh, I have two mommies or two daddy’s, how great!)

Anyone else have any others?

 

[whatevergirl]

But not a very good one, in my opinion. A lesbian is certainly capable of having her own biological child.There is no distinction in the law about children born to heterosexual parents through artificial insemination, conceived from an affair or who become members of the family through adoption vs. biological children. The stepparent who adopts the partner’s child from a previous marriage is fully and legally that child’s parent. But, if two people feel that their union has nothing to do with child bearing…then, the argument doesn’t hold up. A homosexual couple (I could hear) saying…‘Sex isn’t about procreation.’ (But, then we bring God back into the equation)

And if we all took Catholic orders and were celibate the species would die off as well, but I don’t see that as a reasonable argument either against the existence of Catholic clergy, nuns, monks, etc or necessarily a valid argument against expecting celibacy for those orders.

Healthy compared to what? In order to be really valid, you would need to show that growing up with two married same sex parents in a loving stable home was less healthy than growing up in any home with two married different sex parents. I don’t think that will happen, as there are unfortunately plenty of heterosexual marriages out there that are perfectly legal but provide much less than optimum environments for their children.

Could you clarify what you mean by “sterile”?

Sterile meaning unemotional reasons.

And that’s the reason that there is a difference between sacramental marriage and civil marriage. No church is required to either acknowledge a civil marriage as sacramentally binding or to perform a sacramental marriage for anyone who does not meet their requirements. This is seen every day.

Regarding a lesbian having a child biologically …this requires her to seek outside of her relationship to do so…whether it be having intercourse with a man that the couple chooses (this happens) and/or artificial insemination. Either way, she has to go outside of her relationship to have a baby. The sperm can’t come from within her relationship–it can’t. Same for two men–the egg needed cannot come from within the relationship. So, the couple is calling upon the opposite sex to have a baby…doesn’t that seem odd? They can’t accomplish having a baby on their own…because their bodies really weren’t meant to be together. Whether one believe in God or not, doesn’t erase that fact.

But, not every couple wants a baby…but many homosexual couples want children…some choose to adopt. Again, because perhaps they do not want to bring a third ‘party’ into their relationship, or they are good hearted and want to give a child a good home.

Why do we need to offer non religous arguments against gay marriage, anyways? LOL I think people who want non religious reasons, don’t want to face the facts that there are moral codes/laws…and they come from God.

 

[whatevergirl]

But not a very good one, in my opinion. A lesbian is certainly capable of having her own biological child.There is no distinction in the law about children born to heterosexual parents through artificial insemination, conceived from an affair or who become members of the family through adoption vs. biological children. The stepparent who adopts the partner’s child from a previous marriage is fully and legally that child’s parent.

And if we all took Catholic orders and were celibate the species would die off as well, but I don’t see that as a reasonable argument either against the existence of Catholic clergy, nuns, monks, etc or necessarily a valid argument against expecting celibacy for those orders.

Healthy compared to what? In order to be really valid, you would need to show that growing up with two married same sex parents in a loving stable home was less healthy than growing up in any home with two married different sex parents. I don’t think that will happen, as there are unfortunately plenty of heterosexual marriages out there that are perfectly legal but provide much less than optimum environments for their children.

Could you clarify what you mean by “sterile”?

And that’s the reason that there is a difference between sacramental marriage and civil marriage. No church is required to either acknowledge a civil marriage as sacramentally binding or to perform a sacramental marriage for anyone who does not meet their requirements. This is seen every day.

I concur with the bolded/italicized section that u post.

 

[KarenNC]

Sterile meaning unemotional reasons.

Do most of the heterosexual couples that you know get married for unemotional reasons?

Regarding a lesbian having a child biologically …this requires her to seek outside of her relationship to do so…whether it be having intercourse with a man that the couple chooses (this happens) and/or artificial insemination. Either way, she has to go outside of her relationship to have a baby. The sperm can’t come from within her relationship–it can’t. Same for two men–the egg needed cannot come from within the relationship. So, the couple is calling upon the opposite sex to have a baby…doesn’t that seem odd? They can’t accomplish having a baby on their own…because their bodies really weren’t meant to be together. Whether one believe in God or not, doesn’t erase that fact.

Again, neither the need for artificial insemination or adoption is a barrier to legal marriage for a heterosexual couple.Lack of the ability to even have a sexual relationship is not a barrier to legal marriage for heterosexuals (though I do understand that it is a barrier to a sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church).

Why do we need to offer non religous arguments against gay marriage, anyways? LOL I think people who want non religious reasons, don’t want to face the facts that there are moral codes/laws…and they come from God.

I think it is rather that the shoe is on the other foot. The ones who are against any form of civil marriage (not sacramental) do not want to face the fact that laws are not based on their religion’s tenets. There indeed are and have been many moral codes and laws, which came from many Gods (and some from none).

 

[whatevergirl]

Do most of the heterosexual couples that you know get married for unemotional reasons?

Again, neither the need for artificial insemination or adoption is a barrier to legal marriage for a heterosexual couple.Lack of the ability to even have a sexual relationship is not a barrier to legal marriage for heterosexuals (though I do understand that it is a barrier to a sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church).

I think it is rather that the shoe is on the other foot. The ones who are against any form of civil marriage (not sacramental) do not want to face the fact that laws are not based on their religion’s tenets. There indeed are and have been many moral codes and laws, which came from many Gods (and some from none).

Gods–plural? Can you elaborate? Oh, and hi Karen…I wasn’'t sure you’d be on now…you wrote this earlier, sorry for my delay in replying.
I need to read back to my post on tax purposes before answering the above question…

 

[whatevergirl]

My sterile comment has to do with what others might think a reason for gays marrying is…as funny as that sounds. I have heard many Christian arguments…‘they will receive the same tax breaks as heterosexuals.’ Which I find to be a ridiculous argument, frankly. I am not worried about gay people taking anything away from heterosexual marriage (another popular argument amongst Christians)…I’m more concerned with the kids of such unions. I have no idea if there are stats on such unions being healthy or unhealthy for kids…but it would be interesting if same sex couples start teaching their kids about God and His laws…that would be an interesting study. I see gay people in church, and they go up for Communion…

I am a sinner, but if I have mortal sin on my soul…I would go to Confession, see. (Now, not all heterosexuals would–I knew you were thinking that, Karen lol) But, a gay couple doesn’t see their sin…or perhaps, doesn’t want to see their lifestyle as sinful, so they often will receive Communion. Back to God in the equation, because **I don’t think that homosexual couples leave Him out of it, so why should we? **Au contraire, they just refuse to believe that God could condemn their lifestyle, because God is love. God is love. He doesn’t love sin. The great debate with ‘the homosexual agenda,’ actually stems from moral relativism…more than a sexual lifestyle choice. Mormon polygamy is also wrong, but tell that to a Mormon? Another thread perhaps, for another time.

 

[KarenNC]

Socially (A vast majority does not accept this behavior)

Societal mores vary between cultures and over time. It is becoming more acceptable in our culture over time.

**Biologically ** (Males were clearly designed to mate with a female)

**Morally **(Not just Christian religions be it is known to be just plan wrong)

Morality is also culturally specific and varies with time. At one point in the history of the Jewish and Christian religions it was considered perfectly moral to have multiple wives, keep slaves, for the brother of a widow’s husband to impregnate her to provide posthumous children for the husband, to stone people for any number of offenses, etc. These things are no longer considered moral.

Historically (See many presidents with “First Men”, a head of state usually has a spouse of the opposite sex)

Could be problematic if you decide to pattern the ideal of sexual behavior after the heads of state. There is a very long history of multiple wives, concubines, mistresses, etc. there.

Politically (Some political party’s are against it, laws ban gay marriage)

And some political groups are for it.

Mentally (Oh, I have two mommies or two daddy’s, how great!)

You are going to have to clarify what you mean by this one. There are plenty of children of heterosexual marriages who have two mommies and/or two daddies—it’s called divorce and remarriage (or marriage after having a child out of wedlock). That doesn’t include children who are adopted, especially in open adoptions where they remain in contact with their birth parents.

 

[KarenNC]

Gods–plural? Can you elaborate?

There are plenty of examples throughout history of polytheistic societies with quite operational moral codes and laws.

 

[whatevergirl]

There are plenty of examples throughout history of polytheistic societies with quite operational moral codes and laws.

What does this have to do with homosexuality?

 

[KarenNC]

My sterile comment has to do with what others might think a reason for gays marrying is…as funny as that sounds. I have heard many Christian arguments…‘they will receive the same tax breaks as heterosexuals.’ Which I find to be a ridiculous argument, frankly.

The automatic legal benefits and protections afforded to heterosexual couples (whether or not they have children) go far beyond just a tax break. Refer back to the links I provided earlier for a more detailed treatment of this topic.

I am not worried about gay people taking anything away from heterosexual marriage (another popular argument amongst Christians)

Me either.

…I’m more concerned with the kids of such unions. I have no idea if there are stats on such unions being healthy or unhealthy for kids…

Would you consider it healthier for these children to be raised by an unmarried same sex couple without the legal protections and supports designed to help them raise the children in a stable environment or a married same sex couple who have the benefit of those legal protections and supports? That is the actual question, especially for the biological children of a same sex couple.

but it would be interesting if same sex couples start teaching their kids about God and His laws…that would be an interesting study. I see gay people in church, and they go up for Communion…

I am a sinner, but if I have mortal sin on my soul…I would go to Confession, see. But, a gay couple doesn’t see their sin…or perhaps, doesn’t want to see their lifestyle as sinful, so they often will receive Communion.

You come across a large number of gay couples receiving the Eucharist on a regular basis in your Catholic parish? And the clergy have no problem with that? I have to say that I am surprised.

Back to God in the equation, because **I don’t think that homosexual couples leave Him out of it, so why should we? **Au contraire, they just refuse to believe that God could condemn their lifestyle, because God is love. God is love. He doesn’t love sin. The great debate with ‘the homosexual agenda,’ actually stems from moral relativism…more than a sexual lifestyle choice. Mormon polygamy is also wrong, but tell that to a Mormon? Another thread perhaps, for another time.

I would be surprised to see such couples remain within the Catholic Church. There are a number of Christian denominations that do not consider it to be a sin.

Polygamy is a good example of the way that what is considered moral does indeed change over time in religion. Polygamy was evidently perfectly morally acceptable at one point by the same God that is now seen to condemn it.

 

[KarenNC]

What does this have to do with homosexuality?

It has to do with your statement “I think people who want non religious reasons, don’t want to face the facts that there are moral codes/laws…and they come from God.”

 

[whatevergirl]

The automatic legal benefits and protections afforded to heterosexual couples (whether or not they have children) go far beyond just a tax break. Refer back to the links I provided earlier for a more detailed treatment of this topic.

Me either.

Would you consider it healthier for these children to be raised by an unmarried same sex couple without the legal protections and supports designed to help them raise the children in a stable environment or a married same sex couple who have the benefit of those legal protections and supports? That is the actual question, especially for the biological children of a same sex couple.

You come across a large number of gay couples receiving the Eucharist on a regular basis in your Catholic parish? And the clergy have no problem with that? I have to say that I am surprised.

I would be surprised to see such couples remain within the Catholic Church. There are a number of Christian denominations that do not consider it to be a sin.

Polygamy is a good example of the way that what is considered moral does indeed change over time in religion. Polygamy was evidently perfectly morally acceptable at one point by the same God that is now seen to condemn it.

I didn’t say a large number of gays, I said they often receive communion…the same couples I’m speaking of, who I know are gay. But that’s a topic for another thread.

 

[whatevergirl]

It has to do with your statement “I think people who want non religious reasons, don’t want to face the facts that there are moral codes/laws…and they come from God.”

Oh. Ok.

Do you believe in one God or many gods, Karen?

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Would you consider it healthier for these children to be raised by an unmarried same sex couple without the legal protections and supports designed to help them raise the children in a stable environment or a married same sex couple who have the benefit of those legal protections and supports? That is the actual question, especially for the biological children of a same sex couple.

Same sex couples with children do have legal protections. The non-biological parent is allowed to adopt and adoptive parents actually have more legal protections than biological parents.

There was a case I heard of a few years ago where the non-biological girlfriend sued for custody when her lover left her for the child’s biological father. The non-biological lover got custody!

I think the rights and best interest of the child should prevail.

The Catechism of the Church says it best here:

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) **infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. **They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."166

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."169

A same sex couple who choose to bring a child into the world through artificial means are choosing to deprive that child from the get go of that child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. The child will be wounded by the loss of either parent, never to be able to look into the face of mother or father who is missing and see their reflection.

Having said that, I do support Civil Unions for committed same sex couples.

 

[whatevergirl]

Karen says—>Would you consider it healthier for these children to be raised by an unmarried same sex couple without the legal protections and supports designed to help them raise the children in a stable environment or a married same sex couple who have the benefit of those legal protections and supports? That is the actual question, especially for the biological children of a same sex couple.
What legal support and protections? I work for a company whereby they offer same sex couples medical, life, etc…insurance for their life partners, and their children. If I were not married to my husband…my kids would have access to legal protections, and support. I’m confused by what you mean by support.

 

[whatevergirl]

Same sex couples with children do have legal protections. The non-biological parent is allowed to adopt and adoptive parents actually have more legal protections than biological parents.

There was a case I heard of a few years ago where the non-biological girlfriend sued for custody when her lover left her for the child’s biological father. The non-biological lover got custody!

I think the rights and best interest of the child should prevail.

The Catechism of the Church says it best here:

A same sex couple who choose to bring a child into the world through artificial means are choosing to deprive that child from the get go of that child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. The child will be wounded by the loss of either parent, never to be able to look into the face of mother or father who is missing and see their reflection.

Having said that, I do support Civil Unions for committed same sex couples.

Good point–same argument would hold true for women or men wanting to adopt a child, without a ‘partner’ or ‘spouse’ at all.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Good point–same argument would hold true for women or men wanting to adopt a child, without a ‘partner’ or ‘spouse’ at all.

Adoption of an orphan is an entirely different issue. These children have already been deprived of their biological parents.

I do think it’s in the best interest of an orphan to be adopted into an intact home with a Mother & Father, preferably by a relative of the biological parents. Yet if that’s not an option for an orphan then a good, stable, home environment is preferable to instituionalized care or foster care.

 

[whatevergirl]

Adoption of an orphan is an entirely different issue. These children have already been deprived of their biological parents.

I do think it’s in the best interest of an orphan to be adopted into an intact home with a Mother & Father, preferably by a relative of the biological parents. Yet if that’s not an option for an orphan then a good, stable, home environment is preferable to instituionalized care or foster care.

I don’t think anyone would dispute that–if there were no other options. I just find it sad that so many children have such options to face. Both situations aren’t great actually. (I am sure we could find one parent homes where the care is far better than two parent homes…but the comparison comes in when we speak of ‘stable, good, in tact homes.’ I would rather see a child go to a two parent in tact, stable home…than a one parent home. I think the child will grow up missing vital experiences gained from having both parents) My parents died by the time I became 10…and my sister raised me. She and her husband were stable and good people…and treated me well, but they won’t replace my mom AND dad. But, that’s not the topic…

The topic is how to argue against gay marriage…without bringing God into the equation. I don’t see how one can’t…

 

[KarenNC]

Oh. Ok.

Do you believe in one God or many gods, Karen?

Definitely polytheist.